Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1912 ..

Mr Humphries: I rise to take a point of order here. The motion that has been moved and is before the house is to allow the recommittal of the vote. We then have the recommittal of the vote. If Mr Corbell wants to speak again he can do so at that point. This is a motion to recommit the matter.

Mr Corbell: No, there is no opportunity to speak once this motion is passed.

Mr Humphries: You can seek leave at any point. We are debating a motion at the moment to have the matter reconsidered, so debating on the substance of the motion rather the question of whether we reconsider the motion is inappropriate. Wait until this is done and then do it.

MR CORBELL: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I thank members.

Mr Humphries: May I speak again too?

MR CORBELL: You can seek leave. The issue that Mr Osborne needs to take into account in his vote this evening is this: is it appropriate to refer this matter to the standing committee on urban services rather than a select committee on privileges? The government has argued that it is inappropriate to refer the matter to a select committee on privileges because there may be problems with what will happen if a witness is called and will not appear. That was the argument put by Mr Moore.

Mr Rugendyke raised the concern that if the select committee on privileges called a witness to appear and the witness did not appear we possibly would be at a dead end and there would be a problem with the whole conduct of the select committee on privileges. Mr Speaker, exactly the same situation would take place if this matter were referred to the standing committee on urban services. If the standing committee on urban services requested Mr Gower to appear and he did not, we would have exactly the same quandary presented to us. The government's only argument for why it should be referred to the standing committee on urban services rather than a select committee was that there would be a problem with the process. My point, Mr Speaker, is that there would be a problem with the process regardless if a witness chose not to appear.

The only other argument that we have from the government is that the select committee on privileges is the wrong place to consider this. Our argument is that the standing committee on urban services is the wrong place to consider it because you only have to look at the terms of reference of the standing committee on urban services. There is nothing in the terms of reference for the standing committee on urban services that empowers it to look at the issue of a possible breach of privilege. I ask members to point out in the terms of reference of the standing committee on urban services where it says "to investigate matters of privilege". It does not say it. It does not say it anywhere. The motion I moved this morning was to inquire into a possible breach of privilege. Where should that go? It should go to a body formed for the explicit purpose of examining those matters.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .